India Nuclear News and Discussion 17 August 2007

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 18 Aug 2007 04:06

As AS points out, when I first read the 123, it crossed my mind that the definitions of various terms in artcile 1, 'eg. what constitues 'nuclear material' etc will be stretched to the limit should Unkil ever have to invoke Hyde.

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 18 Aug 2007 04:09

'N-deal hugely beneficial for India'

New Delhi, August 17: The nuclear deal with the US will help meet India's short-term energy demands and allow the country to proceed unhindered with military and research requirements for national interests, the nation's top atomic scientist has said.

â€œThe deal allows us to access nuclear technology from both the US and others to meet our short-term goals," Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar said.

He said in an interview to India Today magazine that the country's indigenous nuclear programme involves sequential technology development and â€˜even if one tried to accelerate that there are limits to itâ€™.

"In the long-term, with our three-stage programme and strong fundamentals, it will open up the huge energy potential for India," Kakodkar said.

The civil nuclear deal with the US will be a paradigm shift in the short run as it will allow India to meet the target of producing 20,000 MW of nuclear power by 2020, including 8,000 MW generated using imported reactors, he said.

"That is the baseline but in reality it could be much more," Kakodkar said.

He also sought to dismiss the controversy over the right to conduct nuclear tests and said, "Look at it the other way, supposing this agreement is not there and a similar situation arises -- there would still be an upheaval."

The nuclear tests of 1998, though five in number, were large in terms of configuration and ideas, he said. "That did provide us with a high degree of confidence," Kakodkar remarked.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 18 Aug 2007 04:27

Since many people (including Shri AK at one point in Dec. 2006) have stated that 123 is like the infamous blockbuster "the return of the son of Tarapur". I was wondering if the following thought experiment would provide clues on the goodness/badness.

Consider two hypothetical alternate realities if Tarapur had not taken place because Indians back in 63 feared it would interfere with "smiling buddha".

BR Gurus might consider this a useless exercise, but speaking for myself, it seems to be instructive from understanding the "root causes" of one's support/opposition for the deal.

Disclaimer: The questions below are obviously in the category of "if I Aunt wore pants and grew a mustache, would she transmogrify into my uncle?"-type questions...but please bear with me.

Time: 1963
Choice: Sign agreement with US on Tarapur
or
Maintain "right to test" in 1974

Since we now have 20/20 hindsight on Tarapur, each answers to these choices based on their own current thoughts on being "pro-deal/anti deal". For every complaint about 123, translate that to a complaint about Tarapur, and the eventual choices that would have been made.

What are the cost/benefits of both choices (back in 1963) -- (please post any additional points -- these are all I could think of right now)

India's power status in 1963: Much weaker than today. A nascent nuclear and missile program.

Choice: Maintain "sovereignity" and "right to test"

Costs: No Tarapur agreement and this a future

Benefit: In a hardline BC-like view, India would not be violating any agreement when if it had to test a few years down the line (10 years, to be precise).

Question:for every possible choice in 1963 (No/Yes to Tarapur) , would India have been better or worse off in 1974 when it was forced to test because of the political environment.

Choice: Sign Tarapur Agreement

Costs and Benefits are known since this is now 2007.

Differences between then and now:

1) India's nuclear and missile programs were nascent/non existent
2) Economy was much weaker
3) More politically coherent.."single Party" congress rule
4) India reserves were much lower
5) Number of employable youth was not burgeoning like it is today.

The answer is a judgement call on the part of anyone thinking about the question, but if one has faith in Indians and their ability to beat the odds when pushed to the wall, then, if one was faced with the Tarapur question back in 1963 with the above mindset (with faith in Indians), they would have been proven right. India tested, US sanctioned, and possibly the worst things that could have happened, in fact happened from India's POV, but we are all still around and in fact conducted another test in the interim. I do not know what the Indian Nuclear establishment and scientists learned out of Tarapur, but I imagine it was a learning experience for all involved.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 18 Aug 2007 04:34

CRamS wrote:As AS points out, when I first read the 123, it crossed my mind that the definitions of various terms in artcile 1, 'eg. what constitues 'nuclear material' etc will be stretched to the limit should Unkil ever have to invoke Hyde.

Such important definitions and clarifications are seperatly captured as side text notes by both sides and are kept secret. What you read in public text can indeed seem ambivalent to a reader. There is much more to it. On this one dont worry have curry.

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 18 Aug 2007 05:26

China's happy that India-US deal's in trouble

BEIJING: If the Left is all but pulling the rug from under Manmohan Singh's government, comrades in Beijing are gloating over the fact that cosying up to Washington has New Delhi all tangled up in red, blue and white.

It's uncharacteristic of Chinese Communist Party dailies to comment expansively on internal matters of the nations Beijing is trying to mend fences with. But China, wary from the start that the nuclear bonhomie between India and the US will challenge its security dominance, have obviously seen the troubles in New Delhi worthy of comment.

Judging by two articles published on Friday in the People's Daily and its sister publication, Global Times, Beijing seems to want Washington to reconsider its nuclear deal with New Delhi.

The Chinese-language Glo-bal Times, seen by diplomats and foreign policy experts as Beijing's window to the world, said the Indian government has to choose between its own survival and that of the deal. It devoted the entire front page to the deal with a large article headlined: "US warns India not to carry out nuclear tests anymore; India on the boil, Prime Minister faces stepdown".

It said the deal has caused a political turmoil in India leading to a situation where Singh might be forced to step down from office. It discussed in detail the objection to the 123 deal voiced by Indian opposition parties as well as Left leaders, some of whom still regard the Chinese brand of Marxism as the most suitable political ideology. Singh's photograph dominates the front page of Global Times, which is published thrice a week.

The Chinese foreign ministry and the official media had earlier voiced their objection to the deal on the ground that India was not a signatory to the NuclearNon-Proliferation Treaty. But now, the tone of criticism is strident.

It's the first time the state media has attempted to evaluate the political situation in India to judge the sustainability of the N-deal and the longevity of the UPA government.

Communist Party mouthpiece People's Daily said the US has disregarded international opinion to use India as a "tool for its global strategic pattern" by supporting New Delhi's nuclear ambitions. Global Times said the US has been driven to seek an ally in India because of China's rapid development. It said Indians, who were earlier excited about the deal, now feel they have been fooled by the US into signing an unclear and unreliable pact.

enqyoobOLD · Post by **enqyoobOLD** » 18 Aug 2007 06:14

enqyoob, in the sense you are saying transfer the fear/need to test situation to the investment club, and if they feel, we need to test, we should test?

I'm unable to digest this.. however it may be clever to transfer the heat on to the folks who are likely to be the future anti-test lobbysts. why would they ever?

why do they care?.. if they find investment climate is becoming bad, they just move their investments somewhere else.. may be sri-lanka!

Here's my scenario for India deciding that testing is imperative:

1. China/TSP situation becomes extreme - and one/both of them are getting towards Dictator Cycle Step 12: War With India.

Indian intel figures out what is going on and tells the govt that a test is essential to convey the message that the war plan is known, and will result in a nuclear response.

In this situation, I think GOI would inform the AmirKhans, and their intel would confirm. Here the test would be conducted, but a few quiet phone calls would tell the NSG types to shut up.

2. US-China relations teeter towards war over Taiwan or something else. World war III appears imminent. In this case, GOI would call in the foreign investors in India and tell them to go talk to their governments. The best hope for preventing WWIII is for India to take a tough posture. In this case, sanctions etc. are irrelevant.

3. US-MidEast pleasantries become a lot worse .. and the whole place goes up in flames. TSP takes the lead in the Ummah ... and of course organizes them to attack India. The US meanwhile is ruled by the Ummah-Appeasers who gang up to blame it all on India (I assume "Kashmir" is still a going concern for TSP).

India tests. Yes, the buggers will impose sanctions at that point, but then that's 1971 all over again, and no amount of promises to not impose sanctions is going to help. In this case, Indian tests and preparation for war, as happened in 2002, is the best approach. The Ummah will back down, and things will come back to normal.

In any of these scenarios, testing happens when India REALLY needs to test. The present 123 does not hinder it in any way.

rgsrini · Post by **rgsrini** » 18 Aug 2007 06:29

US-MidEast pleasantries become a lot worse ...
...
TSP takes the lead in the Ummah

This is precisely why Uncle cannot give up TSP permanently. It simply cannot afford the whole Islamic population to gang up against it, especially with a Nuclear Bum.

TSP will always under American influence and will always be kept delinquent and consequently dependent on uncle for occassional bones like F16s.

disha · Post by **disha** » 18 Aug 2007 06:42

enqyoob wrote: ... testing happens when India REALLY needs to test. The present 123 does not hinder it in any way ...

I am just thinking that this whole hoopla about testing is because now it is evidently clear and brought to the conscious fore that any new testing may result in serious sanctions while that same was earlier in the subconscious?

It is like knowing that the "emperor" is naked vs. seeing in mirror and actually acknowledging that the "emperor" is naked.

Since it is out in the open it is like a collective sigh of perceived loss of H&D.

Coming back to testing, Arun S. succinctly pointed out why megaton and several kiloton testing is not necessary.

The future is not for big nukes, but as I had posted in several several threads ago, the future is in mini-nukes and micro-nukes. The more smaller it gets the more difficult it is. Imagine a micro-nuke of 10 tons TNT in 10x10 cm package of 10 kgs! Will not cause serious damage to a city, but can take completely down dams, bridges, airports, runways, ships in one precision strike and a kill probability very high.

As pointed out, it is only about physics. How fast you can compress the gola and how much. The faster you compress the gola and increase the critical density, the bigger blast you get. Or put it simply you get the same blast with a smaller material! It all boils down not to the pu gola but the electronics and the chemical explosives surrounding it. The faster the electronics, the faster the switches, the higher the chances of arriving at proper compression! Here the switches need to go from microseconds to say even nano or pico seconds.

enqyoobOLD · Post by **enqyoobOLD** » 18 Aug 2007 06:57

One learns something new every day..

I once read a book where every nation had cruise missiles like they now have RPGs. Saudi Arabia had them, Yemen had them...

And they had these Pakis running around with the insides of their skulls scooped out and filled with nuclear bombs, with a microcircuit board to control them.

Horribly realistic. I mean the part about Pakis with nukes inside their skulls... The headweight - and the lack of brains - and the suicide mentality. All fit.

Now I begin to c y they are so mean about export licenses for switches - and y there is so much $$ going into making picosecond and femtosecond pulse generators.

So the development needed is in missiles (delivery systems) and electronics for guidance and control. This confirms my feeling that India should accelerate testing - of missiles and other conventional weapon systems and components. Sooner or later there will be "test bans" on everything.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 18 Aug 2007 07:11

ahem...

A Flight Test Ban as a Tool for Curbing Ballistic Missile Proliferation

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 18 Aug 2007 07:19

Unless India has Russian nuke designs, tested adequately by them, and we are simply tinkering with tried & tested designs then there is no way we can avoid testing, nukular test software and supercomputers or not.

test bans on missiles and nukes is just a 'soft' way for the established hegemony to maintain primacy, test bans also sound harmless and benevolent to the masses and can be used massively for psy-ops.

http://www.saag.org/papers24/paper2330.html
CHINA & THE 123 AGREEMENT: An Update

5. This negative attitude was in a great measure caused by the Chinese suspicion that the Indo-US nuclear deal was the US' quid pro quo for an Indian willingness to co-operate with the US in countering the growing Chinese power in the Asian region. This suspicion was strengthened when our Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, decided not to attend the summit meeting of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO) as an observer at Shanghai in June, 2006. The Indian explanation that since India was only an observer of the SCO and not a full-fledged member, its participation at the level of the head of Government was not warranted did not seem convincing to Beijing. The Prime Minister's decision not to go was interpreted as due to the US suspicion that one of the main objectives of the SCO was to counter the US presence and role in the Central Asian Republics. As a result, China's lack of enthusiasm for the Indo-US nuclear deal continued.

6. In the meanwhile, President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan initiated a campaign to counter the Indo-US deal at two levels. He did not oppose the deal. Nor did Pakistan energetically try to have the deal disapproved by the US Congress through Congressmen and Senators sympathetic to it. Instead, it sought to counter the deal by using the following arguments. First, it will be discriminatory to Pakistan if it was not made applicable to it too. Second, it will create a military nuclear asymmetry in the sub-continent by enabling India to divert its domestic stock of fuel for military purposes, while using the imported fuel for civilian purposes under international safeguards. Thus, it will have an adverse effect on Pakistan's national security.

7. The US rejected the Pakistani arguments by pointing out that Pakistan's economy was unlikely to grow as rapidly as the Indian economy in the short and medium terms and hence it should be possible to meet its energy requirements from conventional sources. The US also repeatedly made it clear that in view of the role of Dr. A. Q. Khan, the so-called father of Pakistan's atomic bomb, and some of his colleagues in clandestinely supplying nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya, Pakistan cannot be treated on par with India, which had an unimpeachable record of non-proliferation.

8. While sticking to his arguments, Musharraf requested the Chinese leaders during his State visit to China in February, 2006, for Chinese assistance in the construction of six more nuclear power stations, with a capacity of 600 or 900 MWS each. The Chinese reportedly agreed in principle to supply two stations of 300 MWs each to be followed later by four more. This subject again figured in the General's bilateral discussions with Mr.HU in the margins of the SCO summit in June, 2006, and in the subsequent discussions between the officials of the two countries, who met at Islamabad and Beijing for doing the preparatory work for Chinese President Hu Jintao's visit to Pakistan from November 23 to 26.

9. Gen. Musharraf and his officials were so confident that an agreement in principle for the construction of two new nuclear power stations (Chashma III and IV ) would be initialed during Mr. Hu's visit that they even set up a site selection task force.

10. Then for reasons, which were not clear, there were indications of changes in the Chinese attitude---less negative towards the Indo-US nuclear deal and increasingly guarded on the Pakistani request for new nuclear power stations. In the case of India, the changing Chinese attitude was reflected in the daily media briefing of the Foreign Office spokesperson and in a media interview given by the Chinese Ambassador in New Delhi. In the case of Pakistan, the change was reflected in the daily media briefings of the spokespersons of the two Foreign Offices at Beijing and Islamabad.

...

16. Dr. Manmohan Singh and Mr.Hu had formal talks hardly for a little more than an hour. The carefully-formulated position on the nuclear issue could not have been the outcome of such a brief meeting. The final version of the Joint Declaration was already ready before the two leaders formally met and approved it. It had been drafted by the officials of the two countries in their preparatory meetings in the weeks before Mr. Hu's arrival. The change in the Chinese position must have been the outcome of these discussions in the weeks before Mr. Hu's visit and not a sudden change on the eve of the summit or at the summit itself.

17. As against this, the change in the Chinese position with regard to Pakistan's request for six more nuclear power stations came about suddenly in the days (not weeks) before Mr. Hu's arrival in Islamabad. Well-informed Pakistani sources attributed the more guarded Chinese position to the bilateral discussions between President George Bush and Mr.Hu at Hanoi in the margins of the summit of the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) Organisation on November 18 and 19, 2006. The speculation was that during these bilateral discussions, Mr. Bush pointed out to Mr.Hu that the Chinese supply of new nuclear power stations to Pakistan could not be projected as a continuation of the Chinese assistance to Pakistan under a 1985 bilateral co-operation treaty under which CHASHMA I and CHASHMA II were given and hence would need the clearance of the NSG. According to this speculation, Mr. Bush was also reported to have referred to the Pakistani rejection of repeated requests from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to hand over Dr. A. Q. Khan for an independent interrogation and pointed out that the Chinese supply of the new power stations could encourage Pakistan's non-cooperation with the IAEA.

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 18 Aug 2007 08:10

Forward-looking farce
Part II of Arun Shourie's analysis -- deserves to be posted in full

In the interests of the quality of discussion on this thread, I would urge that posters shoot down specific points raised by him instead of taking potshots at him personally or at his world view or at his motivations.

123 Pact: Deal binds India to Hyde Act whose main objective is to â€˜halt, roll back and eventually eliminateâ€™ Indiaâ€™s nuclear capability

On March 7, 2007, while introducing the Separation Plan, the prime minister told Parliament that the US had assured India that we would have access to uninterrupted supplies of fuel throughout the lifetime of the reactors that we would place under safeguards â€” both from the US and from other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Elaborating on this assurance â€” the absolutely critical assurance on the basis of which the government justified placing two-thirds of our reactors under safeguards at the very beginning â€” the prime minister said: â€œTo further guard against any disruption of fuel supplies for India, the United States is prepared to take other additional steps, such as:

a) Incorporating assurances regarding fuel supply in a bilateral US-India agreement on peaceful uses of nuclear energy, which would be negotiated; b) The United States will join India in seeking to negotiate with the IAEA an India-specific fuel supply agreement; c) The United States will support an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of Indiaâ€™s reactors, and; d) If despite these arrangements, a disruption of fuel supplies to India occurs, the United States and India would jointly convene a group of friendly supplier countries to include countries such as Russia, France and the United Kingdom to pursue such measures as would restore fuel supply to India.â€

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 18 Aug 2007 08:17

A lot of people were commenting on China-US 123...here are some exerpts and article ..

123 pact: India got better deal than China
18 Aug 2007, 0000 hrs IST,Indrani Bagchi,TNN

Beijing Doesn't Get N-Fuel Supply

NEW DELHI: Where does the Chinese 123 agreement fundamentally differ from the Indian one? A cursory reading of the agreement says that America's international obligations would score over its domestic laws in the observance of the agreement.

But testifying to the US Congress in 1985, the then ACDA chief, Ken Adelman explained, "The agreement is only an umbrella agreement. It permits, but does not require, the export of any nuclear items. Thus, if Chinese behaviour ever became inconsistent with our understanding, we would suspend the licensing of exports. The Chinese know that."
No international obligation can prevail in this understanding, the US side was clear.

None of these prescriptions apply to the Indian agreement. Very briefly, the differences between the two are this: India has a cooperation agreement that envisages fuel supplies.

The Chinese do not. The Chinese agreement was signed in 1985 but ratified by US Congress only in 1998. The Chinese don't have a fuel supply arrangement. India does. In fact, the Chinese agreements with US and Australia are complementary to the extent that it's with the Australians that they have a fuel supplies arrangement. China did not get reprocessing rights for spent fuel. India did.

China has accepted bilateral inspections by US and Australian inspectors. India has not. (what is this nonsense ?)

The US has linked extraneous provisions like China's relations with Pakistan, its non-proliferation record and its record on Tibet to the agreement. India has successfully resisted such linkages. China has given Australia a role in its separation plan. India has insisted that it has the sole right to decide which of its reactors are civilian.

China has undertaken de facto permanent safeguards without permanent supplies.

They have one concession that India does not: that domestic law will not triumph over international obligations in the US' dealing with China. However, it was this clause that held up the implementation of the US-China nuclear cooperation agreement for years.

In fact, in 1990, the US passed yet another act called the Foreign Relations Authorisation Act 1990-91 which piled on an extra presidential determination that China had not aided proliferation activities of any non-nuclear weapons state, that it would undertake political reform throughout the country including Tibet, as well as assurances on export controls. China also accepted inspectors to check on the imported nuclear material.

Nevertheless, it wasn't until October 1997 that then US president Bill Clinton agreed to provide the certification to the Chinese agreement. He said, "It will allow our companies to apply for licences to sell equipment to Chinese nuclear power plants, subject to US monitoring." It was finally signed and sealed in January 1998. And the Pakistan nuclear tests happened in May, 1998.

indrani.bagchi@timesgroup.com

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 18 Aug 2007 08:19

China is a NPT member as well as a P5. It is a NWS with all rights
How can India be compared to China

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Aug 2007 08:21

I would think biggest threat to India from US is travel advisories !

sure the US is going to maintain its dog(TSP) and now mainly not to contain India but to contain China from establishing itself on the Gulf directly. some
toys will be given to maintain H&D. TSP is also needed to maintain a toehold
in afghanistan now that relations with Russia is souring.

but the chances of a overt Indo pak conflict are very remote imo - the pakis know the US will punish them heavily and run them into the ground while india will thrash them and our politicians dont have the balls to fight a open war with pak. so the H&D toys need not unduly worry us.

instead let us seek ToT and JVs from unkil's goody bag on par with Israel.

I think Shiv has hit nail on head - nothing has changed except perceived loss of "face" and H&DEE

we indians have always been cowards wrt testing or rocking the boat and continue to remain so.

by fixating on TSP dont lose the big objective - technological and industrial parity and superiority wrt Panda. US is not changing its hostile stance to PRC wrt defence industry and that will help us. PRC is far ahead of india in most areas of defence industry, we must catch up and leveraging US knowhow is a good stream of advance. Israel is fond of slipping things to PRC unless US pulls in the leash.

Japan labour force is slated to shrink 7% by 2015. with Massa's benign
blessings we must shift some of their swanky heavy industry and ship
building to India's warm welcoming shores. oerhaps that the strategic
play behind them being leaders behind dilli-mumbai corridor.

our tech sector is already 101% a vassal of the US which is good because
US treats employees a lot better than desi cos would do if left alone.

dhimmi thoughts on a saturday morning, no red meat for me - I need
water, power and good school onlee if I am to survive in this mess.

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 18 Aug 2007 08:22

A word dropped, a word inserted and the assurances are fulfilled!
Part I of Arun Shourie's analysis - deserves to be posted in full

123 Agreement: Mind the gap between the PMâ€™s assurances and the text of the deal

I had taken up with President Bush our concerns regarding provisions in the two bills,â€™ the prime ministerâ€™s website records Dr Manmohan Singh telling the nuclear scientists. â€˜It is clear that if the final product is in its current form, India will have grave difficulties in accepting the bills. US has been left in no doubt as to our position.â€™

That was in August 2006, soon after his speech in the Rajya Sabha in which the prime minister had drawn the lakshman rekha below which India would not go in its negotiations on the nuclear deal.

When the US House of Representatives had passed its bill, and when the fact could no longer be denied that its provisions would jeopardise our strategic interests, we were all told, â€˜But this is just the House Bill. Our concerns will be taken care of in the Senate bill.â€™ When the Senate passed its bill, and the fact could no longer be denied that its provisions made even deeper inroads into our strategic interests than the House version, we were all told, â€˜But we have to wait for the Joint Conference of the two Houses to hammer out a final version. That will take care of our concerns.â€™ When the final version was passed, and the fact could no longer be denied that it had in it the harshest features of each version, we were all told, â€˜But India is not bound by laws made by any other country. We have to wait for the 123 Agreement. That will take care of our concerns.â€™

We now have the 123 Agreement. It explicitly states in Article 2 that â€˜Each Party shall implement this Agreement in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws, regulations, and license requirements concerning the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.â€™

In the case of the US, the relevant â€˜national lawsâ€™ include the original Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Nonproliferation Treaty Act, and the Hyde Act of December 2006.

To take just one example, the very Section of the 1954 Act under which the â€˜123 Agreementâ€™ is entered into â€” Section 123 â€” states that, should any nuclear device be detonated for any reason whatsoever, not only shall all nuclear commerce be halted with the country, the US shall have the right to demand the return of â€˜any nuclear materials and equipment transferred pursuantâ€™ to the agreement for cooperation as well as any â€˜special nuclear material produced through the use thereof if the cooperating party detonates a nuclear explosive device.â€™ â€˜For any reason whatsoeverâ€™, the Joint Conference of the two Houses made explicit, shall also include â€˜for peaceful purposesâ€™ â€” the ground we had invoked for the 1974 test! This provision is re-emphasised in the Hyde Act. Section 106 of the latter states explicitly, â€˜A determination and any waiver under section 104 shall cease to be effective if the President determines that India has detonated a nuclear explosive device after the date of the enactment of this Act.â€™

As for â€˜applicable treatiesâ€™ the US Act to operationalise the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty binds the US not to directly or indirectly â€” and we shall soon see the significance of these two words, â€˜or indirectlyâ€™ â€” assist any Non-nuclear Weapon State to acquire or manufacture nuclear weapons. That in devising its cooperation with India the US must adhere to its obligations under this Article is reiterated and emphasised in the Hyde Act. That is why Section 104 of the Hyde Act explicitly states, â€˜Pursuant to the obligations of the United States under Article I of the NPT, nothing in this title constitutes authority to carry out any civil nuclear cooperation between the United States and a country that is not a nuclear-weapon state party to the NPT that would in any way assist, encourage, or induce that country to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices...â€™

That is just one example of what that reference to â€˜national lawsâ€™ entails. As is well known by now, the US Congress completely disregarded the assurances that our prime minister had given to Parliament and incorporated a slew of provisions that were even more stringent, even more intrusive than the provisions of the original bills which the prime minister had said India would have â€˜grave difficultiesâ€™ in accepting.

So, what does the prime minister do now â€” especially in view of the fact that the 123 Agreement explicitly mandates that, in implementing it, the US shall be bound by these laws? Simple: in the long statement that he waded through on August 13, 2007, in Parliament, the prime minister just doesnâ€™t mention any national law at all, not the Hyde nor any other Act!

Omission actually is deployed more than once as the device of choice.

â€˜Allâ€™ out, â€˜associatedâ€™ inserted

The central imperative in our discussions with the United States on Civil Nuclear Cooperation is to ensure the complete and irreversible removal of existing restrictions imposed on India through iniquitous restrictive trading regimes over the years. We seek the removal of restrictions on all aspects of cooperation and technology transfers pertaining to civil nuclear energy â€” ranging from nuclear fuel, nuclear reactors, to re-processing spent fuel, i.e. all aspects of a complete nuclear fuel cycle.â€™ The â€˜complete and irreversible removalâ€™ is just as important. But for the moment I am on the â€˜allâ€™ â€” in giving this assurance to Parliament, the prime minister used the word not once but twice.

In fact, a little later in his speech, he assured Parliament a third, and a then fourth time, â€˜We seek the removal of restrictions on all aspects of cooperation and technology transfers pertaining to civil nuclear energy â€” ranging from supply of nuclear fuel, nuclear reactors, reprocessing spent fuel, i.e., all aspects of complete nuclear fuel supply. Only such cooperation would be in keeping with the July Joint Statement.â€™

Persons like me pointed out that the â€˜full cooperationâ€™ the US would enter into could not but be â€˜less than fullâ€™. The reason was simple: US authorities â€” including President Bush â€” have stated time and again that as reprocessing, enrichment and heavy water have to do with producing nuclear weapons, and not with meeting energy requirements, the US shall not transfer technologies, materials or equipment related to these three vital aspects. Sponsors of the Hyde Act, that is the ones on whom India was relying to see the legislation through Congress, themselves emphasised this in their speeches on the floor and in the Joint Explanatory Statement that they submitted while forwarding the reconciled bill to the two Houses.
And throughout the negotiations for the 123 Agreement, the US Government stuck to this stand. But how to save the Indian Governmentâ€™s face? Through what our prime minister in his statement of August 13, 2007, calls, â€˜forward looking languageâ€™! Article 5(2) of the 123 Agreement, which the prime minister claims as an achievement, is the result. It provides, â€˜Sensitive nuclear technology, heavy water production technology, sensitive nuclear facilities, heavy water production facilities and major critical components of such facilities may be transferred under this Agreement pursuant to an amendment to this Agreement. Transfers of dual-use items that could be used in enrichment, reprocessing or heavy water production facilities will be subject to the Partiesâ€™ respective applicable laws, regulations and license policies.â€™

Notice the two conditions: (1) â€˜pursuant to an amendment to this Agreementâ€™; and (2) â€˜subject to the Partiesâ€™ respective applicable laws, regulations and license policies.â€™ And then too, â€˜may be transferredâ€™. When the Agreement which has not even become effective will be amended, no one knows! And how it will be amended when the â€˜applicable laws, regulations and license policiesâ€™ of the US explicitly prohibit such transfers, no one knows! But the â€˜forward lookâ€™ zindabad!

But what about that four-times repeated assurance to Parliament? The prime ministerâ€™s new statement, the one of August 13, 2007, deploys an â€˜out-of-the-boxâ€™ solution. â€˜The concept of full nuclear cooperation has been clearly enshrined in this Agreement,â€™ the PMâ€™s new statement reads. â€˜The Agreement stipulates that such cooperation will include nuclear reactors and aspects of the associated nuclear fuel cycle, including technology transfer on industrial or commercial scale.â€™

Please read that again. Did you spot the word that is suddenly missing? â€˜All aspectsâ€™ has suddenly become â€˜aspectsâ€™! And â€˜all aspects of the fuel cycleâ€™ has become â€˜aspects of the associated nuclear fuel cycleâ€™ â€” that is, aspects associated with reactors that the US will supply: a manual describing safety procedures, for instance!

â€˜Allâ€™ dropped. â€˜Associatedâ€™ inserted. Assurances fulfilled. And Parliament can go jump out of the box!

What the PM does not refer to

This is not the first time that we have had a 123 Agreement with the US. We had one for Tarapur also. The US signed that Agreement with us in 1963. It was to be effective for 30 years, till 1993. That Agreement provided that the US would give fuel for Tarapur as needed by India. It provided that the US would have the first right to spent fuel in excess of Indiaâ€™s needs for peaceful nuclear energy. And even for this part, just the first right. If it did not take back the fuel, we would have the right to reprocess it. There were no conditions. In testimony to the US Congress, US officials have themselves acknowledged that the US is not to this day sure that India violated any term of the 1963 Agreement. Yet, the US terminated all fuel supplies in 1974, saying that India had violated domestic US laws. Pressed about the laws, the US maintained that India had violated the intent of US domestic laws! For decades, it has consistently refused to either take back spent fuel or let us reprocess it. All this happened, even when there was no Hyde Act â€” no India-specific law â€” to govern that Agreement.

That is why the provision in the new 123 Agreement that, in implementing it, a party â€” the US in this case â€” shall be governed by, inter alia, its national laws becomes all important. And that is why the prime ministerâ€™s decision not to let any reference to this provision slip at all into his lengthy statement is so telling of this new culture â€” of spin; of the half-truth. Nor do we have to wait for the laws that the US may pass in the future. The three laws that are already on their statute books â€” the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Nonproliferation Act, and the Hyde Act â€” are sufficient to keep India on the shortest possible leash.

To gauge the difference, contrast the provision in the 123 Agreement that the US signed with China in 1985. Article 2(1) of that Agreement specifies: â€˜Each party shall implement this Agreement in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws, regulations and license requirements concerning the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposesâ€™ â€” so far, almost the same as the Indo-US text. But then comes the vital sentence which is missing from the Indo-US agreement: â€˜The parties recognise, with respect to the observance of this Agreement, the principle of international law that provides that a party may NOT invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.â€™

That provision shields China from the Tarapur-treatment. The text in the Indo-US 123 Agreement opens us to a repeat of that treatment â€” on an even longer list of â€˜groundsâ€™ than could be envisaged at the time of Tarapur, and at a time in future when, if the PMâ€™s dreams are realised, we will be even less able to resist pressures than we were in the past â€” for we will be dependent on imported nuclear fuel for 35,000 megawatts of electricity and not just, as in the case of Tarapur, for just 300 megawatts.

To be continued

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 18 Aug 2007 08:26

Acharya wrote:China is a NPT member as well as a P5. It is a NWS with all rights
How can India be compared to China

In 1985, when the China 123 was signed by Reagan, and approved by Congress, China was a state with nuclear weapons which was not a party to NPT (exactly what India is today).

China acceded to NPT in March 1992.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 18 Aug 2007 08:29

sraj wrote:
Acharya wrote:China is a NPT member as well as a P5. It is a NWS with all rights
How can India be compared to China
In 1985, when the China 123 was signed by Reagan, and approved by Congress, China was a state with nuclear weapons which was not a party to NPT (exactly what India is today).

China acceded to NPT in March 1992.

That status was even better. It was not an NPT member but still had the deal.
It could become the NPT whenever it wanted to as a NWS and get all uranium deals it wanted.

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 18 Aug 2007 08:42

Yechury of left is quoted as saying that the left concerns should also be reflected during talks with NSG.

Indrani Bagchi wrote:Left & Right: Arguments against N-deal don't hold
18 Aug 2007, 0120 hrs IST,Indrani Bagchi,TNN

NEW DELHI: The Left is likely to transfer its dislike for the Indo-US nuclear deal to what its calls "Asian Nato". This is the latest in the list of objections against the government's foreign policy. Interestingly, "Asian Nato" is the name given to the "quadrilateral" of Japan, US, Australia and India by the Chinese government.

As early as 2003, a commentary in China Daily said, "Washington's basic purpose for closer ties with India and an Asian version of Nato is to extend its status as the world's sole superpower." The Chinese government has sounded a general alert on this grouping. Not only did it ask India not to sign up to this grouping in 2006 before PM Manmohan Singh travelled to Tokyo, Beijing even demarched India after the first official level meeting between the four states in Manila in May this year.

The subsequent announcement of joint exercises between the four in September in the Bay of Bengal - adding on Singapore - further enraged China. The Left parties, which are inordinately sensitive to Chinese concerns, have internalised this objection and made a huge point of it, particularly in their long statement against the nuclear agreement.

They want India to stay out of the quadrilateral, and this demand will acquire shriller overtones in the days and weeks to come. But for the government to disown the quad at this point is counter-productive. Among other things, one of the main authors of the quadrilateral, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, will be in town next week, when he will address a joint session of Parliament on Tuesday.

For the Left parties, its immaterial whether it's the nuclear deal, the "bad" aircraft carrier Nimitz or the proliferation security initiative - they are all a measure of US hegemony. Interestingly, on August 14, China's People's Daily showed it too was thinking on similar lines.

"It is safe to predict that a substantial change has taken place in the nature of Indian-US relations despite possible turns and twists in future," it said, adding, "It is quite obvious that the US generosity in helping India develop nuclear energy is partly due to its hegemony idea and partly due to the intention of drawing India in as a tool for its global strategic pattern." The core of the BJP objection is that India should not accept a deal that is subservient to US national laws.

But on January 12, 2004, when the NDA government announced the NSSP with the US, the agreement read, "These cooperative efforts will be undertaken in accordance with our respective national laws and international obligations."

To object to the same language in the 123 agreement is specious. The other BJP demand is the US should immunise future Indian nuclear tests, which is an impossible demand. It has taken to heart provisions of the Hyde Act that the US president said he would not obey, because it infringes on executive privilege.

When US President George Bush signed the Hyde Act into law in December, he was very clear that the offending section 103, which is at the centre of the present political storm here, would be "advisory" or non-binding as would section 104 (d)(2). Sections 104, 109, 261, 271, 272, 273, 274, and 275, the President said, would be treated with presidential discretion, because despite the overzealous US Congress's prescriptions on the Hyde Act, the president wasn't going to give ground on the conduct of foreign policy.

The UPA government will also counter that former national security adviser Brajesh Mishra had offered a similar nuclear deal to Colin Powell when he visited in March 2004, which was not accepted.

indrani.bagchi@timesgroup.com

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 18 Aug 2007 08:42

Singha wrote: dhimmi thoughts on a saturday morning, no red meat for me - I need
water, power and good school onlee if I am to survive in this mess.

And I am already ironing my jubba/angavasthram/veshti for going to Delhi and recieving the hafta for "allowing" thorium mining (The Tao of CITU goons

)

It is a brave new world out there indeed.... one hopes

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 18 Aug 2007 08:43

RonyKJ wrote:The best way to clear the muck is to sign the agreement and immediately announce a nuclear test.

PM says 123 allows testing. Unscientific advisor says his computer models and programs are so good that testing is not required, never mind future new designs / concepts and 'islands of nuclear stability'. Many apolitical people in India say that testing is required, necessary and that this 123 increases the negative consequences of testing to an unacceptable level over and above what India would have had to bear anyway.

Keeping the above in view, I feel that India should conduct an underground (U233, preferably) PNE as soon as possible, much before negotiations with NSG or IAEA. Unfortunately, according to GOI the 123 is already signed and so I cannot call for testing even before signing the agreement, as I would really have liked. Testing now will test the waters right away.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 18 Aug 2007 08:48

Acharya wrote:China is a NPT member as well as a P5. It is a NWS with all rights How can India be compared to China

It can be compared when China has chosen to give up some NWS rights for a nuclear deal. The idea is that when a NPT NWS can accept conditions, why not India.

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 18 Aug 2007 08:55

this testing clause is a good leverage on the US. Let them ratchet up against Iran or build up tension with China. We can immidiately test a miniature nuke.

then we see who takes whose side....if China and US get together...then we can always claim that our test contributed towards world peace. If our act postpone/delay any move against Iran then again we can take credit for a truly 'peaceful nuclear test'.

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 18 Aug 2007 08:58

Rangudu wrote:The idea is that when a NPT NWS can accept conditions, why not India.

Could you pls elaborate on the conditions that China has accepted? Thanks.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 18 Aug 2007 09:00

Yes, China accepted some bilateral conditions, but is an expert in limiting where the inspectors can go. In other words, they will lie through their teeth. This is something India can not do. It is also important to remember that the US-China 123 Agreement was done in 1985 and China continued to test until 29 July 1996, this included a 221 KT test on 21 May 1992. From 1964 to 1996 China has conducted 45 tests with 22 being above ground. None of the testing affected the US-China 123 agreement and there were companies like Loral assisting Chinese missile programs. So the inspectors could check the civilian reactors, big deal.

If India even thinks about testing and the "spooks" get wind of it, I would bet that the US under a democrat administration would scrap the US-India 123 Agreement and ask for materials back.

Kati · Post by **Kati** » 18 Aug 2007 09:13

Though not a fan of Bardhan-Karat-Yechury, but glad that they have taken a tough line against 'His master's Voice' MMS. After reading Arun Shourie's article it makes me wonder once the deal is accepted will the future GoI have b@11s to conduct a test and call unkil's bluff?
Yes, India needs to make a rapid progress in building atomic power plants, but why under disgraceful conditions? Unkil's sole purpose is to use india against China, how does it help common Rma-Lakshman or Rahim?

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 18 Aug 2007 09:22

BJP leaders wished me death: Manmohan Singh

The irony is that if George Fernandes said something like this on BRF, the admins would have come down on him like a ton of bricks and permanently banned him and his IP!

At least someone in the opposition had the guts to say it. Its refreshing to listen to a different voice when we mainly hear of all the leftists, DDMs, kandle-kissers and anti-India personalities.

Sparsh · Post by **Sparsh** » 18 Aug 2007 09:35

Here is a mental exercise for people to do:

(1) What sort of Indian nuclear force posture do you advocate?

(2) Try to answer that question in two parts. The first part should be qualitative and then on the basis of that the second part should be quantitative.

(3) When you answer the quantitative part be specific with warhead numbers and a breakdown of those numbers. Try to be as detailed as possible.

(4) Now that you have a good idea of what sort of force posture you want, go back and try to calculate how much fission and fusion fuel we would need to build up and most importantly maintain that force posture.

There is a lot more to a nuclear force posture than just warhead numbers and fission and fusion fuel. I have totally neglected the efficacy of the delivery mechanism here. But then every argument for or against the 123 agreement boils down to these. So think of them first. The other stuff can be left for later.

Just think about it. No need to post your answers.

You will realize that India's needs for any realistically conceivable force posture can be met by the facilities to be left on the military side even if you assume that so far we have just used Dhruv and Cirus for our weapons stockpile and I for one am sure that we have not.

There is no quantitative cap being placed by the 123 agreement. BC is spouting complete garbage.

Sparsh · Post by **Sparsh** » 18 Aug 2007 09:41

Most of Arun Shourie's arguments stem from the Hyde Act.

He goes off the rails right there and then.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 18 Aug 2007 09:42

Cross posting from International nuclear thread:

Gerard wrote:Global Fissile Material Report 2006
http://www.fissilematerials.org/ipfm/si ... port06.pdf

Appendix 2.A
Table 2.A.2 â€“ Global Stocks of Separated Plutonium (metric tons)
Code: Select all
Country      Military stocks       Military     Civilian stocks
              (end of 2005)       production     end of 2004 

India (d)        0.52            continuing       5.4 (2005)

Israel           0.45 Â± 25%      continuing         0
... .. . .
(d) Following the 2005 proposal by U.S. President Bush and Indiaâ€™s Prime Minister Singh for India to separate its military and civilian nuclear activities and submit Indiaâ€™s civilian activities to IAEA monitoring in exchange for access to civilian safeguarded materials and technology in the international market, India has proposed to include in the military sector much of the plutonium from Indiaâ€™s power reactors labeled â€œcivilianâ€

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 18 Aug 2007 11:04

There are two things. One is what to do, second is how to do. Many have the art to do first thing. The very difficult part is the second one. The problem with the lefts, BC & others are in the second part. Clamouring for the status, raising slogans dont bring anything. Leader is the one who not only shows what to do but also shows how to do it. Thats the criteria to seperate wheat from chafe.

See the state of WB. Let them show their skills in developng them first. Let they ponder their ranking in list made by India Today. Pride without purpose doesnt bring anything. It doesnt bring welfare, it doesnt lift the poor, it doesnt give food.

In proving a point or to hopping for the pride, lets not leave the sufferrings of 70 % of our population to destiny. Though who argue on the cost, on the wrost case scenario, should note that 30 billion dollars invested will bring much benefits to poor and lift many from the downtrodden. Even it is to be returned in a scenario, one cannot substitute the benefits it brought to the Indian community for that period, while, the other party has to pay for the cost of return.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 18 Aug 2007 11:05

Mort Walker wrote:BJP leaders wished me death: Manmohan Singh

At least someone in the opposition had the guts to say it. Its refreshing to listen to a different voice when we mainly hear of all the leftists, DDMs, kandle-kissers and anti-India personalities.

However, Congress spokesman Abhishek Singhvi said the comments by Singh revealed the "true face" of an irresponsible party.

"Here is the true face of the BJP. The party could not simply digest the fact that they lost the 2004 general elections."

Why do they refer to the 2004 election - it looks like a strategy.
They have figured out that If they keep blaming BJP the people get distracted from the main issue. It is similar to some of the posts here.

PM getting paranoid: Jaitley
New Delhi: The BJP on Friday rubbished Prime Minister's remarks in an interview to a magazine alleging that some Opposition leaders had organised havans to ensure his untimely death.

Wondering why "it has taken the Prime Minister three long years to discover the non-existent havans organised against him", BJP general secretary Arun Jaitley said: "Prime Ministers have in the past made statements which are capable of criticism. But the content of this statement can only be described as rubbish."

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 18 Aug 2007 15:14

First time I noticed that India has already recovered 5,400Kg RgPu by reprocessing spent fuel that had inventory of ~12,000 Kg RgPu.

(my guess - less than 7000 kg reactor grade plutonium)

As per seperation plan envisaged in India-US Civil nuclear power agreement the 5400kg RgPu inventory will be in military fense. along with the 520 Kg WgPu.

wapons grade plutonium my guess is over 1000kg again a guess )

My research indicate that Indian light weight TN weapon of 200Kt need 1 Kg (Typ) or 2Kg (at most) WgPu for primary, and 12Kg RgPu for secondary spark plug plus tertiary. Thus in 2005 India had enough for at least 260 TN light weight weapons of 200Kt yield. The likely count is ~450 TN weapons 200kt plus 70 of 150Kt (U238 for tertiary)TN weapons . These are for light weight TN version. A heavier weight (+150 Kg mass addition) brother of this weapon using additional natural U will yield ~60 to 90 Kt additional yield.

safer to assume 3.5-4kg weapons grade plutonium per weapon 20 kg plus pf reactor or slightly more enriched plutonium for secondary)

I

nterestingly one can notice typical NPA psy-op when reporting global number of nukes. Almost all report Indian weapon inventory to be 40-50 while its WgPu inventory is 540Kg (in 2005), while OTOH Isreal with 450Kg inventory is reported to posses 75 -200 warheads. Wink Yindu-Yahudi bhai-bhai !! Laughing

[/quote]
no of TN weapons I think is india has close to 400 warheads but again this is only a guess

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 18 Aug 2007 16:22

Interestingly one can notice typical NPA psy-op when reporting global number of nukes

As usual they're looking at Dhruva and Cirus only.. they deliberately don't consider the many PHWRs that could be loaded with a 1/8 core for low burnup (as the reactors at Kalpakkam were reportedly used)

Israel has one reactor.. Dimona - 100 MWt.
India's Dhruva reactor is also 100 MWt

Yet we are to believe that Israel has 200 bombs while India has 50 (parity with Pakistan).

The SWU figures for the Uranium centrifuge plants are also hilarious... India must seriously lack engineers...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Aug 2007 16:38

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financia ... 3D8FG0.htm

China began building the first nuclear power plant in its northeast on Saturday, part of a rapid nuclear expansion meant to curb growing use of coal and oil, a state news agency said.

The 50 billion yuan ($6.5 billion) Hongyanhe power plant in Dalian will have six 1-megawatt generating units, the Xinhua News Agency said. It is based on Chinese-developed technology.

The first generating unit is due to go into operation in 2012 and the rest by 2014, Xinhua said.

China plans to build 31 new nuclear plants by 2020 as it tries to meet the soaring energy demands of its booming economy while curbing reliance on oil and coal. The country has four nuclear plants in operation, all in the fast-growing east and southeast.

Equipment suppliers are looking to China to sustain sales at a time when few other countries are planning new plants. But Beijing also is trying to develop its own technology.

The northeast, once the center for state-owned heavy industry, has lagged behind in the past two decades of capitalist-style reforms. But the government has launched a new initiative to develop the region.

The Dalian plant "will help ease the increasing electricity demand in the northeast boosted by the country's strategy of revitalizing the region," said Liu Huanxin, a Liaoning provincial economic official quoted by Xinhua.

The Dalian plant is being built by a consortium of three state-owned Chinese companies.

Guangdong Nuclear Power Group, which operates nuclear plants in the southeastern province of Guangdong, and China Power Investment Corp. each will own 45 percent of the plant. The Dalian Municipal Construction Investment Co. will hold the remaining 10 percent.

Once completed, the plant should have an annual generating capacity of 30 billion kilowatt hours, supplying 10 percent of the total output of China's northeast, Xinhua said.

China is the world's second-largest power consumer after the United States and the third-largest oil importer.

Government plans call for nuclear plants to supply 4 percent of China's power needs by 2020, up from 2 percent last year. To keep up with fast-growing consumption, that will require expanding generating capacity from 8 million kilowatts this year to 40 million kilowatts.

Beijing also is promoting solar, wind and other renewable energy but is expected to continue to rely heavily on coal and oil.

Other nuclear plants in China are based on Chinese, French, Russian and Canadian technology.

Westinghouse Electric Co. signed agreements in July to sell the first four U.S.-designed nuclear power plants to China.

As part of that deal, Westinghouse agreed to hand over technology to make its newest reactor. That is expected to make Westinghouse's third-generation AP1000 reactors the basis of China's future efforts to develop nuclear power technology

----
if this be true the chinese will license build the westinghouse design as
their next series though for H&D purposes it will never be mentioned as
such..instead some bright engineer from jiaotong univ will reverse engineer the control system code and another guy from fudan will crack the metallurgy and physics of the imported maal to develop the local product.

enqyoobOLD · Post by **enqyoobOLD** » 18 Aug 2007 16:59

China is a NPT member as well as a P5. It is a NWS with all rights
How can India be compared to China

By taking the facts carefully and analyzing them.

1. What does "being a P5 member" buy China that India does not get with the new agreement? A membership badge? That comes with the explicit statement in the 123 that it relates only to the civilian side. IOW, the fact that there is another side is recognized, and that fact is not allowed to stop the agreement. Hence India is an NWS. It is not a member of the P-5, but certainly of the P-6.

2. China is a NPT member. What does that buy China that India can't get under this agreement?

.... a membership card?

3. How can India be compared to China? Again, by taking the facts one at a time, and in total.

China signed off on a civilian cooperation deal, WITHOUT a lot of

about whether this or that was "in perpetuity".

The Chinese international cooperation agreement is strictly about civilian programs. No country except Pak, North Korea and Iran have military nuclear agreements with China, AFAIK.

And China still tested its weapons through TSP and North Korea after the NPT and CTBT and 123, when they decided that there was an opportunity.

All this is pretty evident, but still brings these one-liner pieces of politically-motivated brilliance like "How can India be compared with China?"

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 18 Aug 2007 17:17

Left in India is making lots of noises. Karat recently had press-conference where he threatened to withdraw support if PM took next step ie Sign safeguards agreement with IAEA and NSG.

By the way they have completely forgotten that China also has signed 123 with US and obviously Left finds no problem with that.

Just because left has opposed this, I say MMS should go ahead and sign a few more deals with US. Just to spite the left to spite them if nothing else.

enqyoobOLD · Post by **enqyoobOLD** » 18 Aug 2007 17:38

Interesting benchmark:

China's 123 agreement was agreed way back in 1985, Clinton finally signed off in 1997, the agreement was finalized in January 1998, China tested again in May 1998 through TSP...

... but the first nuclear plant under this has STARTED construction yesterday (August 2007).

NINE and a half years to START construction. In CHINA...

This shows that the progress is going to be slow, and dictated by the urgency that both partners feel, and any stunts are going to come with a steep price in delays.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 18 Aug 2007 17:39

Raju wrote:Left in India is making lots of noises. Karat recently had press-conference where he threatened to withdraw support if PM took next step ie Sign safeguards agreement with IAEA and NSG.

By the way they have completely forgotten that China also has signed 123 with US and obviously Left finds no problem with that.

Just because left has opposed this, I say MMS should go ahead and sign a few more deals with US. Just to spite the left to spite them if nothing else.

The problem is with the current governement. We have a highly egoistic Prime Minister with no pragmatism/statesmanship. They should have used BJP from the start atleast on this deal. They should have requested Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie's services and should have made as part of the team that negotiated the deal.

If they had BJP in their basket they could have dealt with this under the wraps without the involvment of parliament or Left. MMS did not learn anything from PVNR regarding political management. PVNR as a leader of minority government, passed all the economic reforms using BJP and all the social thing using Left. PVNR sent ABV to UN to lead the Indian deligations.

MMS took it too personal and tried to get all the credit when he is leading a 124 member party that is dependent heavily on all sundry parties. He failed miserably in playing the coalition politics.

Now he suddenly talks ultimate nonsense of havans and spirits etc.

I have doubts that this government will survive if they proceed with 123 and NSG agreements.

enqyoobOLD · Post by **enqyoobOLD** » 18 Aug 2007 17:47

Muppalla: The Opposition plays a very useful role in the Indian system. They are our answer to the Ed Malarkeys and Dan Burtons and Barbara Boxers. So it would be counterproductive to take them along in negotiations.

From all I have seen, the BJP top netaship (all 0.75 of them) have been very much in the loop from the beginning, behind the scenes. The campaign to get the Bills through COTUS were very much bipartisan desi (forget the FOIL types who were always anti-India on everything).

It was only after the deal was safely sailing through COTUS that the BJP started looking for political stuntmanship points, and came out with a stunning series of idiotic "white papers" and other garbage, all of which seem to have been authored by people with absolutely no vision or thought process.

The result is that today the BJP finds itself utterly marginalized and reduced to calling the PM names, and making stupid death threats.

THIS is going to impress the Indian electorate? I think if MMS went to the nation for elections in the wake of this, the Congress might return with a Constituent Assembly. The BJP candidates will enrich the Election Commission by forfeiting their deposits on an unprecedented scale.

This is the political tragedy. Instead of doing their homework and demanding a coherent energy and security policy from the government, the BJP went to the role of being gnats on a buffalo's tail. They could have been the crows sitting on the buffalo's back and caw-cawing about energy policy and security policy instead.

The LEFT has always been the snakes in the grass. Nothing new there.